Click here to view the embedded video.
-Amanda Baggs , “In My Language”
The character of Khan experiences the violent intersection of race, religion, and ability. When he is taken aside for questioning at the airport, it is due to a combination of different identity markers. He is a brown man (race), reciting Arabic (religion), and mumbling to himself in a seemingly “odd” manner (ability). Repeatedly throughout the film, Khan experiences violence and rejection due to his intersecting identities. His non-normative social interactions lead others to pick up on his Muslim identity, as he is unwilling to compromise (unlike the other Muslim characters) in performing religious rituals. It’s significant that the film is narrated by Khan reading his diary, as the thoughts of the narrator are elegant, complex, and emotional — a very different picture of Khan emerges with the narration of his tale. The narration acts as a critical point of entry for the cognitively abled viewer, who needs Khan’s actions to be explained in their own “language”. I was reminded of a video from Amanda Baggs. In the first section she sings to herself and interacts with her environment. The footage is then repeated, with an English translation. In one part she says, “However the thinking of people like me is only taken seriously if we learn your language, no matter how we previously thought or interacted. As you heard I can sing along with what is around me. It is only when I type something in your language that you refer to me as having communication…I would like to honestly know how many people if you met me on the street would believe that I wrote this. I find it very interesting by the way that failure to learn your language is seen as a deficit but failure to learn my language is seen as so natural that people like me are officially described as puzzling rather than anyone admitting that it is themselves that are confused not autistic people or other cognitively disabled people who are inherently confusing “. If the story of Khan had been told in his native language, I think it would have been totally inaccessible to most viewers and would lead to him being labeled as a “non-person”. It is only through the act of translation that the viewer is able to relate to and understand Khan as a whole complex person.
As we’ve discovered in other texts this quarter (Apu’s Brown Voice, and Orientals) language is a powerful identity marker. What assumptions do we make when we hear accented English? What assumptions do we make when we aren’t able to interpret someone’s native language? What if that language is in constant conversation with the environment, involves movement, and repetitive motion? These are important questions that I hope to continue analyzing.